(1.) DISMISSAL of an application moved by the plaintiff-petitioners seeking production of additional evidence has given rise of to the present revision.
(2.) CASE of the plaintiffs who are sons of Gauri Shankar is that Gauri Shankar took the premises in dispute on rent vide rent note dated January 4, 1977. Gauri Shankar died on July 10, 1980. Parveen Kumar defendant-respondent is alleged to be the cousin of the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs filed a suit for mandatory injunction to the effect that the defendant should cease to use the shop in dispute and hand over vacant possession thereof to them. This suit was filed obviously on the ground that their father was a tenant and after his death, they are entitled to continue in possession. Defendant, however, claimed possession as tenant under the landlord on the strength of rent note executed by him in favour of Nasib Chand, attorney of the landlord. The plaintiffs moved an application for leading secondary evidence regarding rent note dated January 4, 1977 as according to them, the original rent note executed by Gauri Shankar was in possession of Nasib Chand, attorney of the landlord and said Nasib Chand had stated that the original rent note was not in his custody. Application for secondary evidence was allowed and the plaintiffs infact led secondary evidence regarding rent note dated January 4, 1977 and proved the same. The plaintiffs thereafter moved an application seeking permission to lead additional evidence in order to prove the original rent note dated January 4, 1977, which according to them was then available with them. The trial court, however, declined this application.